The Internet is changing
I wasn't sure what to title this article, and I still don't. I've complained a lot about YouTube's changes and policies as have we all, but these changes are getting more and more serious and they're getting more and more scary. And this isn't just going to be about YouTube. It's also going to be about Facebook, and it's going to be about Twitter. But this isn't really about them either. This is about the larger question of what a private company is allowed to do, but what a private company should be allowed to do. If you're subscribed to Phillip DeFranco, or a few others, you could probably guess what this is going to be about. If not, it's the first topic here link. It's definitely a click baity title. YouTube isn't really shutting down Phillip DeFranco's channel. What they're doing is demonetizing videos that are deemed "not advertiser friendly." Keep in mind that this hasn't happened to me (yet). I'm saying this because I want to make this apparent that I have no vested monetary interest in this topic. So, let's start by saying what YouTube finds as "not advertiser friendly." They can straight out demonetize a video for these topics, even if they are just a vlog talking to a webcam with no copyrighted content whatsoever. support.google.com/youtube/ans… "Content that is considered "not advertiser-friendly" includes, but is not limited to: * Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor * Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism * Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language * Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items * Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown" This is straight from the website I linked. Scared yet? No. Well, that's fine because we have a lot to talk about. Let's start with the excuse that they're using "not advertiser friendly." Okay... let's break this one down one by one. Let's see how "not advertiser friendly" they are in "the real world. "Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor." Sausage Party, which was sparked by the joke "hot dogs kind of look like dicks" has grossed over 60 million dollars and it is still in theaters. "Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism" Isn't Game of Thrones one of the most popular shows out right now? "Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language" The fucking Wolf of fucking Wall Street (fucking) grossed 150 million dollars three years ago. Beyond that, there's South Park, Family Guy. Actually, you know what, every single show or movie that is rated anything higher than PG. "Promotion of drugs and regulated substances..." Family Guy has had an episode specifically stating the wonders of pot... a drug/regulated substance. It still has its audience. "Controversial or sensitive subjects and events..." What's the most popular adult cartoon right now? Oh that's right... South Park, which has its entire existence basically doing just this. And it still has advertisers. ------- Now... YouTube is going to have to enforce this selectively, or they're going to need to... get rid of... so many million+ channels. "Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language" which is why AVGN is one of your most long-lasting channels and has over 2 million subs. But, if this is what YouTube wants to do, it's going to have to demonetize all of his works will "inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language." Let's see... how many YouTube Channels talk about the news, which relate to "controversial or sensitive subjects and events"? Unless YouTube enforces this points across the board I cannot see them doing anything else but behaving unethically and going out of their way to hide opinions. The "advertiser friendly" excuse is bullshit on the face of it, as YouTube grew and built itself on the very criteria that they are apparently now trying to distance themselves on. That last one right there is the most controversial, and for good reason. I'm going to make this excessively simple - displace it in time. Ten or twenty years ago, talking about and supporting gay marriage would be considered a "controversial or sensitive subject and event" and thus demonetized. Fifty years ago, not criticizing the Vietnam War and that 18 year olds were being sent to a war that they could not vote for would be considered a "controversial or sensitive subject or event." It's also the most controversial because it's the most liable for YouTube to enforce and they have done it selectively and intentionally to opinions that they do not like. I could talk about censorship too, but I'd like to stay more focused. But I can give an example briefly - myself. I want to make a YouTube video about this topic; it's almost like I need to. However, if I were to speak about this "controversial or sensitive subject" it could turn my videos into sniper fire, being hit for "inappropriate language." Keep in mind that speaking freely is why YouTube is so popular. ------------- "So what... they're just getting demonetized, it's not like they're getting banned or something like that." On some level, this is actually worse. Say that there's a new channel. There are two stories available. One of them goes against public opinion, and against YouTube's opinion as well. They will get demonetized for talking about it. So, if they want to be paid they'll need to basically have whichever news bias that the website has. And they'll never be able to point it out without risking the lost revenue. --------------- This is like the Twitter Trust and Safety council, except a lot worse. But I don't know why I'm singling these guys out. Facebook, Reddit, they've all got severe censorship issues, especially as of late. I'd talk about them, but because I do want to make a video about this... I can't talk about controversial topics. It doesn't matter if I don't actually believe that Dungeons and Dragons gives people satanic powers, or that my next door neighbor isn't a communist. But... here comes the crux of the matter. The ultimate excuse: "these are private companies, they can do whatever they'd like." Huh, strange for sites and people that claim to be left-leaning because that's apparently a very right-leaning opinion, as they are rumored to be censoring and burying right-wing opinions. But, let's really examine this. Remember a couple of years back? We had the argument about Net Neutrality. Comcast, Charter, and other ISP's wanted to start charging different websites for premium, quicker access. Wanted? I mean, they actually did it. Charter slowed down connections to Netflix, one of their chief competitors and they were forced to pay a sum to get connections back to where they should have been. Everyone was up in arms because that meant that the ISP's and the big companies that could pay them could use this ability to crush competition before it could spring up and get a stranglehold on the internet like large department stores got a stranglehold over "real-world" businesses. It took the government stepping in and changing them to a common carrier service, similar to phone lines where the company could not selectively charge people. If you believe that "companies should be able to do whatever they want" in the strictest sense, you are against net neutrality. --------------------- Actually, I believe that that situation bears a remarkable similarity to this situation. Big companies using an excessive amount of power to stop competition from popping up. The only difference is that now it seems to be based on political opinion. I'm generally averse to excess government legislation, but I think that it's necessary in this case. Social media platforms have become a special thing, like the telephone became a special thing. Like electricity is a special thing. And I think that it should have a special classification where the platform should not be allowed to attack free speech in any way whatsoever. Social media companies should not legally be able to examine the opinions of words, nor should they determine if such a thing is "advertiser friendly." If it is popular, then it will be able to take off. "Advertiser friendly" internet content is a myth. Fuck, websites that exist solely for piracy purposes are "advertiser friendly" enough to get ads. But what about spammers and trolls and such? This doesn't inhibit a user's ability to block and ban at their leisure. In fact, such a thing may be imperative to protecting this system, as more unpopular opinions are liable to get more trolls/spammers/etc. It's becoming more and more apparent that social media platforms need to be forced (legally FORCED) to adhere to freedom of speech and that needs to be enshrined into law. Most of the arguments against this I'd imagine are arguments against freedom of speech in general. Criminal harassment is still an offense you can be arrested for, and that wouldn't change on social media platforms. I'd recommend that you write to the FCC and tell them that we need a special classification for social media sites that forces them to adhere to freedom of speech. At this point, not even the free market can argue against that, as companies "being able to do whatever the hell they want to" is screwing people over. These platforms have grown so big that you cannot compete with them unless you start on their websites. And even then, they might fall like Blip. There are so many topics to talk about, but I dunno, YouTube just might have my tongue tied. Category:Miscellaneous